By: Hegel (Simple)

Hegel (Simple) — Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:55:52 +0000

§ 178: Inheritance

The family also dissolves in a natural way: through the death of the parents, above all of the father. Then the question of inheritance arises.

What is an inheritance really?

The resources already belonged to the whole family before. In inheritance, the survivors only take into their own possession what belonged to them in common. So an inheritance is not a gift from outside. It follows from the community of the family.

The more distant the kinship, the less clear this becomes. For every marriage founds a new family. And in modern society, families live scattered and each on their own. The feeling of closeness grows weaker.

A false explanation:

Some say: Whoever dies leaves goods without an owner. Whoever grabs them first takes them. Mostly these are the relatives, because they are close by. The law, they say, has only made this chance into a rule. This explanation misses the essence of the family.

Summary: In inheritance, the survivors take the common resources into their own possession. Inheritance follows from the community of the family. The more distant the kinship, the vaguer it becomes.

By: Hegel (Notes)

Hegel (Notes) — Fri, 07 Feb 1823 08:06:32 +0000

Heinec[cius], Ant[iquitatum Romanarum liber I] p. 530. liberum olim erat, filios uti occidere, ita exheredare.
Inheritance. As the transition of property to another individual, abstractly [considered] – can pass over only through will – Fichte, primus occupans – the children's right to be nourished and raised out of it, only so much as is necessary for this, not the estate itself – But once already raised – the will of the parents or relatives is to be presumed – αα) they can will something wrong – ββ) with more distant relatives, not to be presumed at all,
absolute ground of inheritance – law of inheritance, an unfortunate chapter – everything jumbled together
α) absolute relation – marriage and children – common property
β) – but where this relation is already not absolute – externality toward one another – the wife still belonging to her own family – the property of the husband or of the wife falls back to the family – an independent person in her own right
If inheritance is an acquisition without the kinds determined above – and likewise without labor – acquisition appears through the contingency of merely external relations – simple within a patriarchal relation – but further on the relations [become] external –
The patriarchal principle of preserving the family – its rank and splendor – carried into civil society, the state – αα) civil society – the principle [is] property – each family independent – property merely capital, to be acquired through labor, activity – ββ) the state – standing, property, within and through connection with the commonwealth – an absolute bond – not the family – the members of the family, within these connections, purposes – disposition, highest purpose set apart from one another – then a contingent gain – out of natural – i.e. without the significance of those purposes – relations.
Disposition, love, only within the bond of the family living together – it becomes an external connection devoid of feeling and disposition – a contingent gain – inheriting from an uncle in the East Indies –
Ground of the testament – having fallen apart – being outside one another
of the family bond
α) among the Romans, from the outset already no ethical relation – Cicero – one wife after another, richer, dowry, more beautiful – stupid, sent away again –
β) but further removed – in place of this total contingency, as external and natural, [there enters] that of subjective arbitrary will – I cannot command for the future
αα) admittedly abstractly [valid]
ββ) But I am not wronged by its non-observance – right, personhood, immediate existence, [wronged] only if not recognized reciprocally.
"It was once open to free men to disinherit their children just as it was to kill them."

Comments on: 178

By: Hegel (Simple)

By: Hegel (Notes)